Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    2695

  • 4th&Five

    1699

  • jimmyjazz

    1286

  • atomheartbevo

    1219

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

GHOSTUSER
GHOSTUSER

I fucking love this President. My 2 faves during my lifetime are Trump and Nixon. They share a lot of similarities and were besieged by the same groups of assholes. No I’m not trolling. Y’all, the lef

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

This.....is magnificent. The "younger generation" is going to have to work double-time to fund YOUR Social Security, which YOUR generation of elected officials raided the fuck out of.  And which,

Posted Images

elfenix

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

Pardon my lack of political science knowledge, but what exactly is the process for the administration to push for a court ordered end to the ACA? I'm guessing they contact a friendly judge and have them take up the case in the hopes that it eventually rises to the SCOTUS?

normally the justice department is supposed to defend the laws passed by congress and the implementation of them as being within the constitution.  trump isn't doing that, and the justice department is actually briefing against it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, tjhooker said:

I know what it means.  I was asking when he said take my ball and go home what he was talking about.  What instance did I threaten to do something like that?  BTW I still have no answer to that question.  You are buying into the Jimmy and Smokey trolling.  Congrats!

Nice try tj. You clearly did not know what that expression means, one that every single person in the country knows. I’ll let it slide I suppose, only bringing it up, ya know, every now and then. You keep doing what you do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Declining life expectancy for the last three years?  Yeah, we noticed.

The fact that overal life expetancy is declining in this country is both ridiculous, immoral, an indictment, and the best sign ever that this country is becoming totally fucked. The richest country in the history of the world now has a declining overall life expectancy, and we are talking about millions of people to somehow lower that average. You trump supporting dipshits are being suckered and you are going to eventually die early because of, mah guns, abortions and blah blah blah. 

Fuck all you trolls supporting trump and the republicans. They really really don’t care if you die. They want it in fact, and you are enabling it. So you can have your precious gun that they will take away from you when they feel like it and it no longer matters what you think. 

Idoits. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elguapo

elguapo 4583

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The fact that overal life expetancy is declining in this country is both ridiculous, immoral, an indictment, and the best sign ever that this country is becoming totally fucked. The richest country in the history of the world now has a declining overall life expectancy, and we are talking about millions of people to somehow lower that average. You trump supporting dipshits are being suckered and you are going to eventually die early because of, mah guns, abortions and blah blah blah. 

Fuck all you trolls supporting trump and the republicans. They really really don’t care if you die. They want it in fact, and you are enabling it. So you can have your precious gun that they will take away from you when they feel like it and it no longer matters what you think. 

Idoits. 

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” - Cheeto President

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paul Wesley

Paul Wesley 3277

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

 

 

Obviously she wants to make a point.  I mean, more than she wants either a moment of reverence or actual communication with a higher power, she wants every Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, etc, legislator to know who’s running the fucking show.  

In other words, it seems to me to be right in line with everything else today’s fake evangelicals (i e Trumpkins) do that’s antithetical to the behaviors that Jesus modeled in the New Testament.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted

First, apologies for bringing back up the individual mandate but I just got home and would like to address the auto/health insurance analogy, which I think is really quite apt.

Auto: When you drive your car on public streets, you and your vehicle are interacting with other humans and vehicles. It is reasonable to assume you might have an accident and therefore injure another person or damage another vehicle. Because of these risks, the government has an interest in making sure that you can cover those damages through your insurance. That seems reasonable.

Health: When you are in the public sphere, you and your body are interacting with other humans and their bodies. It is reasonable to assume you and others are at risk in spreading and/or contracting diseases; causing and/or suffering injury; missing work due to illness/injury which adversely affects your boss/employees/coworkers/customers. Moreover, healthcare providers are required to provide you care as opposed to autobody shops. Because of these risks, the government has an interest in making sure that your care can be paid for. That seems reasonable.

Another interesting case is Home Owners insurance, which is required if you are holding a mortgage.

So, it seems the common thread in these three instances is for the government to "promote the general welfare" as stated in the preamble to the US Constitution by requiring us to take personal responsibility through a means (i.e., insurance) of covering liability.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bolverk said:

First, apologies for bringing back up the individual mandate but I just got home and would like to address the auto/health insurance analogy, which I think is really quite apt.

The problem with the individual mandate under ACA is that it was not actuarially sound.  It need to be MUCH higher.  This was a fatal flaw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

The problem with the individual mandate under ACA is that it was not actuarially sound.  It need to be MUCH higher.  This was a fatal flaw. 

I'm not a healthcare or policy analyst but was only trying to explain the principle or rationale for ensuring that all are covered. I believe, however, that the ACA tried to tinker with that flaw by providing subsidies and/or tax breaks to try to make up that difference. It is a Frankenstein-like system meant to retain/protect a market-based approach to universal healthcare coverage and is therefore really inefficient.

Of course, you already know my opinion on that which is I would prefer a different, government-backed approach for taking out the middleman entirely and just pay for it through taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexEx15

TexEx15 17456

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

First, apologies for bringing back up the individual mandate but I just got home and would like to address the auto/health insurance analogy, which I think is really quite apt.

Auto: When you drive your car on public streets, you and your vehicle are interacting with other humans and vehicles. It is reasonable to assume you might have an accident and therefore injure another person or damage another vehicle. Because of these risks, the government has an interest in making sure that you can cover those damages through your insurance. That seems reasonable.

Health: When you are in the public sphere, you and your body are interacting with other humans and their bodies. It is reasonable to assume you and others are at risk in spreading and/or contracting diseases; causing and/or suffering injury; missing work due to illness/injury which adversely affects your boss/employees/coworkers/customers. Moreover, healthcare providers are required to provide you care as opposed to autobody shops. Because of these risks, the government has an interest in making sure that your care can be paid for. That seems reasonable.

Another interesting case is Home Owners insurance, which is required if you are holding a mortgage.

So, it seems the common thread in these three instances is for the government to "promote the general welfare" as stated in the preamble to the US Constitution by requiring us to take personal responsibility through a means (i.e., insurance) of covering liability.

Nice job adding some more detail.  The other element is a little more nebulous.  The individual mandate also protects other people in that it makes it affordable (relatively speaking) to obtain.  If only sick people bought insurance - adverse selection - most people couldn’t afford it.  The bottom line with health insurance is that healthy people’s premiums pay for sick people’s claims.  The idea is that while you are young and healthy you are paying for those who are sick and that when you get older and need it there will be more young health people to pay for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I'm not a healthcare or policy analyst but was only trying to explain the principle or rationale for ensuring that all are covered. I believe, however, that the ACA tried to tinker with that flaw by providing subsidies and/or tax breaks to try to make up that difference. It is a Frankenstein-like system meant to retain/protect a market-based approach to universal healthcare coverage and is therefore really inefficient.

Of course, you already know my opinion on that which is I would prefer a different, government-backed approach for taking out the middleman entirely and just pay for it through taxes.

This was the intended effect of ACA.  It was an fucked up program designed to fail so that a single payer system would be positioned as the most viable fix. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

This was the intended effect of ACA.  It was an fucked up program designed to fail so that a single payer system would be positioned as the most viable fix. 

I don't think it was designed to fail unless you believe Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation intended for us to eventually have a single-payer system. If so, good on them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24562

Posted
Posted
This was the intended effect of ACA.  It was an fucked up program designed to fail so that a single payer system would be positioned as the most viable fix. 

Which based on the rest of the western world it is the most viable fix.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This was the intended effect of ACA.  It was an fucked up program designed to fail so that a single payer system would be positioned as the most viable fix. 

It's gonna end up that way, but it wasn't designed that way. It could have easily been shored up, but those with the power to do so were/are more interested in knocking down the dam rather than plugging the leak. It's a huge mistake on Trump and the GOPs part if they truly never want universal care because when the Dems have power again, there will be nothing worth fixing in the ACA.

And when Dems finally understand that only the left cares about healthcare for all, they'll push single payer through with or without the GOP when the time comes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 1953

Posted
Posted
Once again, a horrible analogy.  You dont have to buy auto insurance.  You dont have to own a car.  Many people in this country dont.  Just a really bad analogy people think is a good one when it is not.  You can go through life and never be forced to pay for auto insurance.

 

Ok. I’m pretty sure that it’s been brought up, but why about people like me that don’t have kids, yet pay school taxes?

 

It seems like you have no issue with the government forcing expenditures by citizens, as a principle. Your objection is strictly a matter of scope and size, I guess?

 

* ETA: The “you can choose not to drive” comment is interesting. See, if I choose to not own a vehicle, then I don’t have to pay, because by not owning/operating a vehicle, I pose no risk to others which is why it’s ok.

 

There is no way to opt out of getting sick/injured, which does pose a financial risk to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18651

Posted
Posted
Just now, tjhooker said:

LOL OK.  My grandma went through her entire life and never drove.  dont know how she did it but she did.  point is you arent born with the requirement in the US to buy auto insurance once your reach adulthood like you are health insurance now.  This is bestowed upon you now at birth.  

You are not required to buy health insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

Once again, a horrible analogy.  You dont have to buy auto insurance.  You dont have to own a car.  Many people in this country dont.  Just a really bad analogy people think is a good one when it is not.  You can go through life and never be forced to pay for auto insurance.

You're either being willfully obtuse or not reading the full thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, tjhooker said:

Once again, a horrible analogy.  You dont have to buy auto insurance.  You dont have to own a car.  Many people in this country dont.  Just a really bad analogy people think is a good one when it is not.  You can go through life and never be forced to pay for auto insurance.

We (me first) destroyed your stupid point, and yet you keep bringing it up, Komrade.  Funny how that happens.  

I thought you took ball and gone home?

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

This was the intended effect of ACA.  It was an fucked up program designed to fail so that a single payer system would be positioned as the most viable fix. 

Had not Republicans systematically sabotaged the state exchanges, the ACA would have been much more successful that it has been.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, tjhooker said:

You don't even try to disguise your trolling anymore.  Just said fuck it I am owning it. 

I'm not trolling, I laid out the exact parallel between health and auto insurance, and scottsins later said exactly the same thing.  You refuse to acknowledge either.  It's blindingly obvious you are uninterested in real debate, presumably because you routinely get your ass kicked and are at least smart enough to avoid dangerous neighborhoods.

Hint:  an analogy need not be perfect to be illustrative.

 

Quote

Also, saw you MAGA meltdown earlier. You OK? 

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Are you confusing me with somebody else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tjhooker said:

You don't even try to disguise your trolling anymore.  Just said fuck it I am owning it. 

Also, saw you MAGA meltdown earlier. You OK? 

Are you now owning the fact that you’ve never heard the phrase take your ball and go home too?

Learn the language before you talk dipshit.

 You just cost yourself the bonus. I gots to get the bonus doc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Had not Republicans systematically sabotaged the state exchanges, the ACA would have been much more successful that it has been.

Disagree. The fatal flaw was the lack of teeth in the mandate.  The GOP sabotaged the RRR pathways, but the mandate was crucial to making the entire system work. Adverse selection won the day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That "lack of teeth" cost me over a kilobuck with Uncle Sam because I bought a bridge policy that didn't conform.

Which is only evidence that the penalty was not enough.

 

I don't know what the right mandate would have been. Some data suggests that 80% of premium price might be a sweet spot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
911isajoke

911isajoke 6

Posted
Posted (edited)

I fucking LOVE Obamacare .

It has saved my life. 

If it is repealed i should kill the guy who does that in self defense. 

If he can kill a guy on 5th Avenue, I can kill a guy trying to kill a guy on my avenue.

Stand my ground right!

Because I feel threatened.

Mar-alago is in Florida.

Edited by 911isajoke
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...